So did every reasonable thinking American.
According to CNN, former CIA Director David Petraeus will testify that he knew Benghazi was a terror attack “almost immediately.”
This helped…
The third email sent to the White House the evening of 9-11 on the Benghazi attack blamed an Al-Qaeda-linked group for the attack on the consulate.
This email was sent before the lifeless body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged from the consulate ruins.
Breitbart reported:
Just a few minutes ago on CNN, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reported that a high-placed source informed her that former CIA Chief David Petraeus will use his upcoming testimony to amend his previous testimony. According to this source, Petraeus will tell the closed door congressional hearing that he knew “almost immediately” that the September 11 anniversary attack on our Libyan consulate was a terrorist attack committed by the al-Qaeda-linked militia Ansar Al Sharia.
Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor to George W. Bush, who is now a CNN analyst, tweeted this out:
Frances Townsend @FranTownsend
CNN:Petraeus wants 2 testify 2 Congrss tht he knew 9/11 #Benghazi attacks were terrorism, perpetratd by Ansar Al Sharia 'almost immediately'
Other than Petraeus's upcoming testimony being
"different than what he initially said," Starr's source also reported
that Petraeus will tell Congress that at first there were at least 20
different intelligence reports floating around that said the video was
responsible for the attack, and that over time, those reports were
"slowly disproved."
Petraeus also told this source he believed the
CIA talking points given to Susan Rice came from within the White House
or Administration.
This is all a little muddled, but it's important to keep one vital point in mind...
On September 12, the day after the attack (though it wasn't broadcast by CBS), President Obama told "60 Minutes"...
You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt, and my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.
...which means that at that time, the president was pretty sure this was a premeditated attack.
There's no question that at first a "fog of
war" excuse made perfect sense. But what's also not in question is that
as the days and weeks passed, the White House moved further and further
away from what the President said on "60 Minutes" -- which means that as
those 20 or so reports were being "disproved," the Administration was
moving further and further away from the truth.
How did that happen?
The other issue, and this is something I've
been pushing for weeks now, is that both White House spokesman Jay
Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the media repeatedly that
there was absolutely no evidence that Libya was premeditated.
Now we know there was.
It's one thing to say you believe the attack
was over a video, it's an entirely different tightrope to walk when
you're saying in no uncertain terms that there's "no evidence" of a
terror attack.
Other than the tragic loss of life and
intelligence, nothing is more troubling about Libya than the fact that
the White House narrative blaming the attack on the video actually
strengthened and sharpened over time -- over almost two weeks.
Nothing can can make sense of that; at least, nothing acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment